The 12-24 is fairly old now, so is this a replacement? Presumably we can expect better, quieter DC autofocussing plus improved flare and distortion performance. Well, that's what I would be hoping for.

McGregNi wrote: The 12-24 is fairly old now, so is this a replacement? Presumably we can expect better, quieter DC autofocussing plus improved flare and distortion performance. Well, that's what I would be hoping for.

I'm not sure I "get" the need for the wide aperture really ..... is it really necessary or effective to shoot at F2.8 at such wide angles? Surely the same images taken at F4.0 would be hardly any different.

This exactly. I understand the need for an f/2.8 tele or standard zoom, but for wide angles it's not that significant. The bump in shutter speeds won't be all that great and there's the (very slightly) narrower DOF to work around if you're looking to use the wide aperture. If they released an f/4 or variable aperture version in addition to this (a limited design would be amazing) then I'd understand completely. But this seems as though it'll be rather expensive and catered for the pro crowd.

Imagine the possibilities though:11-18mm, 16-50mm, 50-135mm, with the 55mm too. You just can't go wrong there.

It completes the line up for sure, I see that. I think you're right about the difference in terms of results between F2.8 and F4.0 being minimal . The modern cameras now have the ISO performance that the extra stop is not needed for pure light gathering either.

Can't see that any other brand has an 11-18mm f2.8. The closest would seem to be Tamron's old 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6. They're similar in that they both have a gold band round the top, though that's where I expect the similarities end! John K

Curiously there is a D-FA fish-eye zoom on the road map to be compatible with FF, which would make more sense as we already have the DA 10-17mm. I wonder if that is what it will turn out to be? Maybe we will know a bit more soon.